# Georgia Department of Natural Resources

Environmental Protection Division  Air Protection Branch 4244 International Parkway  Sui te 120  Atlanta  Georgia 30354

404/363

- 7000  Fax: 404/363

- 7100

Mark Williams, Commissioner
Judson H. Turner , Director

Page 1 of 10 June 29, 2012

Air and Radiation Docket

Attention: Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2010

- 1059 Environmental Protection Agency

Mail Code: 6102T 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20460

Subject: Comments on 1

- hour SO 2 NAAQS Implementation White Paper

Dear Docket Coordinator:

The Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) appreciates the opportunity to provide the following comments on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Air and Radiation’s draft white paper on implementation of t he 2010 primary 1

- hour sulfur dioxide ( SO 2 ) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). We greatly appreciated the opportunity to participate in the state, tribal and local agencies stakeholder meeting held in Durham, North

Carolina on May 31, 2012, to discuss implementation of the 1

- hour SO 2 NAAQS. We believe this type of process for NAAQS implementation is critical because most NAAQS implementation gets done at the state, tribal, and local levels.

EPA’s draft white paper posed a number of key questi ons to solicit specific input from

stakeholders . All of EPA’s questions from the draft white paper are specifically addressed in

Attachment A of this letter.

Nonattainment Designations

Nonattainment designations should always be based on quality

- assured ambient monitoring data. There must be ambient data demonstrating that SO 2 levels are above the standard before EPA initiates designation of any area as not attaining the standard. Modeling should never be used to designate an area nonattainment in the absence of ambient data exceeding the standard. This applies to initial nonattainment designations and any subsequent nonattainment designations

, should there be any

. Modeling could be used to help determine the boundary for the

nonattainment area.

Sect ion 110(a) Infrastructure Requirements.

We agree with EPA on the revised approach for th e SO 2 infrastructure SIPs as described in

EPA’s April 12, 2012 letter to state environmental commissioners. In that letter EPA stated that they no longer expected the infrastructure SIP submittals to contain modeling demonstrations showing attainment of the standard in unclassifiable areas. We believe that the criteria for such

SIPs should be identical to the criteria for traditional infrastructure SIPs for all other criteriaDocket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2010

- 1059

Georgia EPD Comments on 1

- hour SO 2 NAAQS Implementation White Paper

Page 2 of 10 pollutants. These SIPs should only be required to demonstrate that the s tate has the necessary legal authority, resources and programs in place to implement the new standard. As EPA has stated on numerous occasions, the section 110(a) SIP elemen ts are general information and authorities that constitute the infrastructure of the air quality management program, much of which has been in place since the initial SIPs were submitted in response to the Act of 1970.

Monitoring Based Phased Implementati on Approach with Exemption Based Modeling

If EPA decides that additional monitoring, such as source

- oriented monitoring, is needed, then the additional requirements should be established through the rulemaking process with an adequate opportunity for publ ic comment. The implementation schedule should consider available resources. With that in mind, a structured phase

- in schedule should be developed. T he phase

- in schedule for source

- oriented monitoring could be prioritized based upon an actual

emissions threshold.

As part o f the rulemaking for the source

- oriented monitoring provisions, EPA should include an

ex e mption to this requirement. Sources should be able to use modeling to avoid the monitoring requirement similar to what was allowed in the lead source monitoring program except the model inputs should be based on typical actual conditions and the exemption should be approved if the

model results are less than 0.075 ppm ( i. e

. 100% of the NAAQS )

. Only single, large

, SO 2

sources above the applicable threshold should be modeled. Any nearby small SO 2 sources should be adequately covered by the background concentration.

If a source models at less than the standard, the source

- oriented monitor should not be required

. The 2011 Cross

- State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), the 2011 Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) and the reconsidered maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards for industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers (the Boiler MACT) are expected to significantly

reduce SO 2 emi ssions from the largest sources. Projected actual emissions after subject sources have installed all required emission reduction strategies should be modeled and compared to the

standard to determine if source

- oriented monitoring is necessary.

The moni tor installations should be phased in with the first phase being completed no earlier than two years after EPA finalizes the rulemaking establishing the monitoring requirements, followed by a second phase that would be completed no earlier than two years a fter the first phase. Assuming EPA completed this rulemaking by January 1, 2013, the first phase monitor

installations would be completed by January 1, 2015. A second phase would require monitor

ins tallations two years after the first phase. Assuming EP A completed this rulemaking by January 1, 2013, the second phase would be in place by January 1, 2017.

Model Inputs

Since the purpose of this exemption from monitoring based on dispersion modeling approach is to represent actual ambient conditions, it is critical that the model inputs be representative of typical actual conditions and should not be overly conservative. The hourly emissions used in

the model should be a realistic profile of projected actual emissions during typical operations.

The emissi on inputs should not be based on allowable emissions, nor should they be based on aDocket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2010

- 1059

Georgia EPD Comments on 1

- hour SO 2 NAAQS Implementation White Paper

Page 3 of 10 single worst case actual emission rate. B ackground levels used in conjunction with the model

results should be truly representative of background conditions that do not do uble count emissions that are already included directly in the model.

Emissions Thresholds for Phased Implementation Approach

If a state elects not to utilize the exemption based modeling approach, then the source

- oriented monitoring criteria should be b ased upon an actual emission threshold. The emissions thresholds used in this approach should be established through rulemaking and should consider anticipated

future SO 2 emissions after full implementation of major rules impacting these emissions such as CSAPR, MATS and the Boiler MACT along with all associated installation and operating costs. The thresholds should be unambiguous. If EPA establishes a threshold based on actual

emissions and allows consideration of future SO 2 emissions as described abov e, the threshold for the first phase could be as low as 2,000 tons per year. According to EPA’s draft white paper, this threshold would capture 93% of all point source emissions as reported in EPA’s 2008 National Emissions Inventory (NEI). Using the same criteria, the threshold for the second phase could be as low as 500 tons per year. According to EPA’s draft white paper, this threshold would capture approximately 97% of all point source emissions. If EPA bases the threshold on allowable

emissions

, inst ead of actual emissions, or if EPA bases the threshold on current emissions instead

of future emissions then the thresholds will have to be set at much higher levels. For example, if EPA uses current actual emissions, the phase two threshold would have to be set at around 3,000
tons per year and the implementation approach would not be as protect ive of public health because a significant number of medium (between 500 tons per year and 3,000 tons per year) sources would not be included in the implementation approach. If EPA were to set the threshold based on allowable emissions, there is no accurate way to assess how high the threshold would

n eed to be. H owever, it would certainly have to be much higher than 3,000 tons per year.

EPA should provide an opportunity for sources to reduce their emissions to get b elow the applicable threshold. This would give incentive for sources to reduce their emissions below the threshold. This would reduce regulatory burdens on both the industry and states and the emission reductions would protect public health.

Monitoring Exit Strategy

We suggest that EPA establish a mechanism allowing monitors to be retired after it has been

demonstrated that the source does not cause exceedances of the NAAQS. Considering the form of the standard and the difficulty in siting a limited nu mber of monitors to capture the highest possible SO 2 ambient levels, an appropriate level for discontinuing the operation of a source

oriented SO 2 monitor would be a three

- year design value of less than 50% of the NAAQS. As an

alternative to the 50% level , a source

- oriented monitor should be allowed to retire if the three

year design value is less than 85% of the NAAQS and the source’s emissions have been reduced to below the level requiring the initial installation of the monitor. Finally, the monitor sh ould be allowed to retire if exemption modeling is completed showing compliance with the NAAQS at all ambient receptors. This exit strategy for monitoring should be clearly defined in the monitoring rulemaking.Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2010

- 1059

Georgia EPD Comments on 1

- hour SO 2 NAAQS Implementation White Paper

Page 4 of 10 One critical flaw in EPA’s lead NAAQS sourc e

- oriented monitoring strategy is that EPA did not establish a reasonable monitoring exit strategy. Our source

- oriented monitors in Georgia are consistently showing lead levels at less than 10% of the NAAQS and yet EPA continues to require that those moni tors remain in place.

Funding for SO 2 Implementation

Securing t he financial resourc es and personnel resources to implement the SO 2 NAAQS could be the most significant challenge to successful implementation. It is unrealistic for EPA to expect

the states the cover a significant portion of these costs without significant increases in the state air grants. Given the financial challenges of most state environmental agencies, we believe that EPA should, at a minimum, fund the initial costs (through the phase 2 deadline) through Section 103 grants. If EPA is unable to provide significant increases in the state air grants, EPA is strongly encouraged to look for other ways to secure the necessary financial resources.

Conclusion

Thank you for the opportunity t o provide input on this important issue. These comments were carefully constructed to ensure public health protection taking into consideration the resources that are available to do this complex work. Additionally, EPD supports the comments on t his subje ct submitted by the nine southeastern states air directors . Please contact me at 404

- 363

- 7016 or james.capp@dnr.state.ga.us if you have any questions or wish to discus s any of the

recommendations described in these comments.

Sincerely,

James A. Capp Chief, Air Protection Branch Georgia Environmental Protection DivisionDocket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2010

- 1059

Georgia EPD Comments on 1

- hour SO 2 NAAQS Implementation White Paper

Page 5 of 10 Attachment A

This detailed comment listing is organized by the various section titles of the draft white p aper that was posted to EPA ’s web page on May 22, 2012. La nguage taken directly from the white

p aper is highlighted in italics to help provide context for the comments on that particular section. In particular, the White Paper poses a number of key questions for stakeholders to co nsider. All of EPA’s key questions are addressed in this letter.

Monitoring Options: Key Questions

a. Are the conceptual monitoring networks described in the white paper sufficient to determine

whether ambient SO 2 levels meet the NAAQS and are protecti ve of public health without the need for additional modeling? If not, then what enhancements should be made to them? In what situations should meteorological data collection also be required?

Yes. Since a very high percentage of SO 2 emissions come from a relatively small number of sources, focusing the monitoring network on the largest sources of SO 2 (after implementation of the EGU MACT and Industrial Boiler MACT) will provide a reasonable assurance that ambient

SO 2 levels meet the NAAQS and are protect ive of public health. As described elsewhere in this letter, states should have flexibility to use modeling in lieu of ambient monitoring should that be determined by the state to be a better and/or lower cost option. Meteorological data should not

be re quired as part of any SO 2 ambient monitoring requirement.

b. What is an appropriate number of monitors to site around a source to assess air quality?

This question requires consideration of both economic and technical issues. Given the fiscal

realities that EPA and states are facing, EPA should first evaluate whether or not there are likely to be adequate resources to install at least one monitor at each of the large SO 2 sources subject to

the source

- oriented ambient monitoring requirements. If it is u nlikely that there will be more than adequate resources to install at least one monitor at each site, then one may be all that is realistic to require at this time. If EPA has identified a secure and steady stream of finances that would support more than one monitor, then EPA could do a technical evaluation to determine how many additional monitors would be advantageous for a more robust monitoring network. EPA should not expect states to cover the costs associated with any additional ambient monitors.

c . Is it reasonable for states to consider relocating monitors within their states?

Yes. Whenever EPA reassess es a NAAQS for a particular pollutant it is reasonable for EPA to revisit the monitoring network requirements for that pollutant. Any changes to the monitoring network requirements should take into consideration cost, time necessary to make the changes, impacts/concerns from local communities that may lose a monitor, as well as the ability for the network to provide a reasonable assurance that the NAAQS is being met and that public health is being protected.

What are potential barriers to relocation (e.g., cost, agreement with local community)?Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2010

- 1059

Georgia EPD Comments on 1

- hour SO 2 NAAQS Implementation White Paper

Page 6 of 10 Cost and local community concerns are potential barriers to relocation. Time constraints are also

a po tential barrier because the establishment of new monitoring sites and the relocation of monitors is a very resource intensive task, particularly when this is happening with multiple monitoring sites (and possibly with multiple pollutants) simultaneously.

Is it reasonable for states to consider transferring their monitors to other states?

No, it is not reasonable for EPA to assume that states will consider transferring their monitors to

other states.

d. What kind of modeling (or other analyses) would be necessary to identify the location of maximum impact? What information and resources are necessary to complete such modeling? What is a reasonable schedule for completing this modeling?

Basic dispersion modeling could be done to locate the area of maximu m ambient impact. There may be other, lower cost, methods. EPA should continue to accept comments on these alternatives as it goes through the rulemaking process. As described elsewhere, states would need at least two years from the time that EPA comple ted rulemaking to establish the source

oriented monitoring requirements to get the first phase of monitors s ited. States would need at least two additional years after the first phase to get the second phase of monitors established. The modeling (or othe r method) to identify the location of maximum impact would be completed within those time periods.

e. What options exist for paying for the expanded SO 2 monitoring network? Would stakeholders be willing to conduct monitoring at new locations or provide fu nding to assist states in conducting such monitoring? If so, what type of agreement would be needed between states and stakeholders to ensure the monitoring would be done?

The financial resources and personnel resources that would be necessary to install and operate an expanded SO 2 monitoring network (or do the exemption modeling) could be the most significant challenge to successful implementation of the SO 2 NAAQS. It is unrealistic for EPA to expect the states the cover a significant portion of these c osts without significant increases in the state air grants. Given the financial challenges of most state environmental agencies, we believe that EPA should, at a minimum, fund the installation costs for all additional SO 2 monitors required by EPA through Section 103 grants. If EPA is unable to provide significant increases in the state air grants, EPA is strongly encouraged to look for other ways to fund an expanded SO 2 monitoring network. If EPA chooses to advocate source funding, we believe EPA should provide a mechanism for that funding to come to the states so that the states can operate the monitors as part of their own monitoring network.

f. For potential stakeholder operated monitors, what kind of oversight would the states need to perform? Woul d EPA perform additional oversight? Would someone audit these facility monitoring programs and associated monitors? What type of agreement would be needed between the states and stakeholders to insure the monitoring was carried out? How can we best

ensure that these data are made public (e.g., require submittal to AQS)?Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2010

- 1059

Georgia EPD Comments on 1

- hour SO 2 NAAQS Implementation White Paper

Page 7 of 10 If EPA chooses to allow or require the large SO 2 sources to install and operate the monitors themselves, states should be given full oversight to validate that monitoring is carried out

ac cording to acceptable practices through establishment of a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). Data submittal to AQS should be required. However, as discussed in the response to the previous question, our strong preference is to operate the monitors a s part of our own monitoring network. We believe the overall costs will be substantially less if we operate the monitors than if we have to oversee the sources’ operation of the monitors.

Modeling Options: Key Questions

a. Should some criteria (e.g., t he population weighted emissions index (PWEI) concept) be used to identify priority sources to be modeled in an area where there is no nearby monitor?

We favor a monitoring based implementation approach that includes an exemption from the monitoring base d on a passing modeling analysis. The decision to take the modeling based exemption path would be made by the states on a case

- by

- case basis as to what option works the best for them taking into consideration implementation costs, feasibility of modeling for that source and for that location, and input from affected stakeholders, including the source itself. We do not advocate using PWEI to prioritize work. We favor the use of an annual emission threshold (tpy) to prioritize the work. This threshold sho uld be based on actual emissions in conjunction with anticipated future SO 2 reductions from major rules such as the 2011 Cross

- State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), the 2011 Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), and the

reconsidered Boiler MACT rules. Stat es do not have the resources to evaluate facilities at

current emission levels when these facilities will install new SO 2 controls, undergo a fuel switch,

or will be retired in the near future as a result of these rules.

EPA should provide an opportunity for sources to reduce their emissions to get below the applicable modeling and/or monitoring threshold. This approach provides a clear incentive to reduce emissions below the threshold in a timely manner and would result in emission reductions

that would help protect public health. Furthermore, it would reduce the regulatory burdens on both industry and the states.

b. How should the modeling be performed

– i.e., what changes to the March 24, 2011 guidance should be made, such as the use of size cut

- offs and use of actual emissions?

If the exemption modeling path is selected by the state, then:

1. EPA must allow states adequate time to acquire on

- site meteorological data if the state or facility believes that on

- site meteorological data would produce more a ccurate results.

2. EPA must allow the use of actual emission rates and statistically representative emissions profiles when these data are deemed to be sufficiently reliable.

3. EPA must allow states to use background levels that are truly representative and t hat do not double count emissions that are already included directly in the model.

4. If a source is modeled out of compliance, allow them to remedy the situation through permitting or through installation of a source

- oriented monitor.Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2010

- 1059

Georgia EPD Comments on 1

- hour SO 2 NAAQS Implementation White Paper

Page 8 of 10 c. Are there situation s where modeling is preferable to monitoring? If so, then what are these situations? Should EPA require modeling in certain situations, or is monitoring alone always a sufficient option for areas of concern?

EPA should not require modeling in any situati on. Monitoring should be the default requirement with an option to be exempted from the monitoring based on a modeling demonstration showing compliance with the NAAQS. States may choose the modeling approach in situations where the modeling isn’t too com plicated and the cost of the modeling analysis is significantly less than the cost of installing and operating the monitor.

d. Are there situations where monitoring is preferable to modeling? If so, then what are these situations? Should EPA require monit oring in certain situations, or is modeling alone always a sufficient option for areas of concern?

As stated above, monitoring should be the default requirement with an option to be exempted from the monitoring based on a modeling demonstration showing c ompliance with the NAAQS.

e. What options exist for paying for the new modeling analyses? Would stakeholders be willing to conduct, or provide funding to assist states in conducting, any new modeling? If so, what type of agreement would be needed betwee n states and stakeholders to insure modeling would be

done?

See response to question regarding options for paying for expanded monitoring network.

Implementation Options: Key Questions

a. In what form should EPA set forth the revised approach? Would r ules need to be revised? Which ones? How should states adopt the new approach, and how much time is needed for this?

Any substantive requirement for expanded monitoring networks or the modeling of stationary sources must be set through notice and comment rulemaking. Guidance should not be used to establish any substantive requirement. States would need at least two years from the time that EPA completed rulemaking to establish the source

- oriented monitoring requirements to get the first phase of monitor s established. States would need at least two additional years after the first phase to get the second phase of monitors established.

b. What is a reasonable schedule for 1) designing a sufficient monitoring network; and 2) deploying a new monitor or m oving a monitor from an existing location? (What can be done to initiate monitoring as quickly as possible to collect sufficient data to make attainment/nonattainment determinations?) Is a phased approach useful?

A phased approach for deploying the addit ional SO 2 monitors would be useful in this situation since the amount of work, and expense, in some states is likely to be quite large. States would need at least two years from the time that EPA completed rulemaking to establish the source

oriented monit oring requirements to get the first phase of monitors s ited. States would need at least two additional years after the first phase to get the second phase of monitors established.Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2010

- 1059

Georgia EPD Comments on 1

- hour SO 2 NAAQS Implementation White Paper

Page 9 of 10 c. By what date should the modeling be completed and submitted to EPA? I s a phased approach useful?

EPA should not require modeling in any situation. Monitoring should be the default requirement with an option to be exempted from the monitoring based on a modeling demonstration showing compliance with the NAAQS. This model ing would preferably be completed and submitted to EPA prior to the date that the SO 2 monitor was required to be operational. However, this modeling should be allowed to be submitted at any time in order to be exempted from the requirement to install and operate the source

- oriented monitor(s).

d. Once the modeling/monitoring data are in, how should states and EPA use these data to address violations in unclassifiable areas? Is redesignating the most workable approach? What should be the timing for these r edesignations? Is the timing of the next SO 2 NAAQS revision a

consideration?

EPA should develop a process that places an emphasis on providing a reasonable assurance that people have clean air to breathe. Redesignating unclassifiable areas to nonattainm ent is not a workable approach because it is overly bureaucratic and could result in delays in achieving clean

air.

e. Alternatively, should EPA consider approaches to identify and address violations in unclassifiable areas that do not involve redesignati ng these areas as “nonattainment”? Which alternative approaches are most promising?

Yes. If a source is determined to be causing a violation of the NAAQS in an unclassifiable area, EPA should establish an approach that reduces the source’s emissions suc h that compliance with the NAAQS is reasonably assured that does not involve redesignating the area as nonattainment.

EPA should allow a state to address a source

- oriented ambient air quality exceedance in an

unclassifiable area using the air program permitting process . We understand that EPA believes some states may not have adequate current authority in their permitting programs to establish such permit conditions. While we do no t necessarily agree with this position, we believe that EPA could establish such a permitting mechanism through the Clean Air Act. The permitting mechanism could be p art of the EPA approved SIP. H owever, the individual permits would not be part of the SI P . This may be the most efficient way to bring an area back into compliance with the NAAQS and is an appropriate federally enforceable instrument to use. Given the short

term nature of the SO 2 standard and the typical cause and effect relationship betwee n an individual source of SO 2 and a violating monitor, the traditional designation process is not well

suited to efficiently address such violations. If a state does not address a violation in a timely manner, then EPA could proceed with designating an ar ea as nonattainment and follow the SIP development process at that time.

f. Is it possible to develop an attainment determination approach that provides reasonable assurance that sources of concern that are causing violations will be identified and addres sed?

As described throughout this document, yes.Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2010

- 1059

Georgia EPD Comments on 1

- hour SO 2 NAAQS Implementation White Paper

Page 10 of 10 g. How should EPA address unclassifiable areas with no emissions or shown to have no monitored or modeled violations? What requirements, if any, are appropriate to support designating these areas as attai nment? Is this necessary?

EPA should have a simple process for designating areas with low SO 2 emissions. As described above EPA should establish a threshold that would address a high percentage of the national SO 2 emissions. EPA should require monitori ng (or as an alternative, modeling to be exempt from monitoring) of ambient air quality around sources with actual emissions greater than or equal to

that threshold. Counties that have no sources above this threshold, and are not being impacted by sign ificant emissions from a source in an adjacent county, should be designated attainment or unclassifiable/attainment. Under this scenario, only those counties with sources whose

emissions are above the SO 2 threshold (or are nearby such a source) should be designated

unclassifiable and they should only be maintained in that classification until ambient monitoring (or exemption modeling) determines the area is attaining or violating the SO 2 standard. The

Clean Air Act contains no deadlines for states that have areas designated as uncla ssifiable to be redesignated to attainment. As such, EPA should not impose any such deadline on these areas.